Benefit Of Acquittal Can Be Extended To Non-Appealing Co-Accused If Prosecution Case Is Found To Be Fundamentally Unreliable: Madras High Court Hindu Marriage Act | Petition For Restitution Of Conjugal Rights Serves As A Valid Defence Against Allegations Of Desertion: Kerala High Court Employee Has No Vested Right To Seek Or Retain Additional Charge; Writ Petition Not Maintainable To Challenge Its Withdrawal: Madhya Pradesh High Court Insurance Act | Insurer Cannot Waive Statutory Deadline For Premium Payment Under Bank Guarantee; No Estoppel Against Statute: NCDRC Absence Of Crime Number In Inquest Report & Discrepancy In Sec 157 CrPC Special Report Renders FIR Doubtful: Allahabad High Court MTP Act  | Termination Of Pregnancy Beyond 24 Weeks Permissible If It Involves Risk To Life Or Grave Injury To Mental Health Of The Victim: Gujarat High Court Section 174A IPC | FIR Cannot Be Quashed If Process Server Reports Indicate Failure To Serve At Ordinary Residence: Delhi High Court Issues Guidelines Insolvency Petition | Transferees Of Debtor Cannot Substitute Debtor To Rebut Allegation Of Intent To Defeat Creditors Under Section 6(b) Provincial Insolvency Act: High Court Medical Negligence | Doctor Cannot Be Held Liable For Choosing One Reasonable Course Of Treatment Over Another: Bombay High Court Cruelty | Non-Registration Of FIR Cannot Be Ground To Discredit Testimony Of Wife Seeking Divorce: Jharkhand High Court No Deception At Inception: Calcutta High Court Refuses To Revive Cheating Charges Against Borrower After One-Time Settlement Consumer Protection Act | Doctrine Of 'Caveat Emptor' Subservient To 'Caveat Venditor'; Auctioneer Liable For Sale Of Encumbered Vehicle: State Commission Section 127 CrPC | Past Compromise Not An Eternal Estoppel To Bar Wife From Seeking Enhancement In Maintenance: Orissa High Court States Can Prescribe Higher Qualifications Than UGC Norms, Additional Tests Promote Meritocracy: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cancel Registered Sale Deed Or Adjudicate Title Disputes: Telangana High Court Principal Employer Cannot Abdicate Statutory Liability For Overtime Wages Of Contract Labour Despite Contractual Indemnity Clauses: Jammu & Kashmir High Court Preliminary Inquiry Not Mandatory For Invoking SC/ST Act Provisions If Allegations Disclose Cognizable Offence: Punjab & Haryana High Court Writ Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked For Re-valuation Of Structures Once Compensation Dispute Is Adjudicated Under Section 64 RFCTLARR Act: Telangana High Court Revenue Village Naming | Government Must Ensure Names Do Not Reflect Any Person, Caste, Or Religion Under Policy Guidelines: Rajasthan High Court Section 138 NI Act | Complainant Must Prove Proprietorship Of Firm To Establish Status As 'Payee' Or 'Holder In Due Course': Himachal Pradesh High Court

Bail Denied in Rape Case: RJ HC

07 May 2024 2:49 AM

By: Admin


 The Rajasthan High Court denied Godman Asaram Bapu's motion to suspend sentences in a case involving the sexual assault of a minor [Asharam @ Ashumal v. State of Rajasthan].

Justices Vinit Kumar Mathur and Sandeep Mehta were hearing the third application filed by Bapu after he was convicted and sentenced to life in prison for sexually assaulting a minor and sentenced to life in prison.

The Jodhpur bench of the High Court ruled that the appellant did not merit bail based on the nature and severity of the allegations, as well as the fact that the appeal itself was ready for hearing.

Asaram filed the petition on the grounds that he was an 83-year-old elderly man suffering from multiple ailments.

He stated that he had been incarcerated for nine years and seven months, and therefore deserved bail.

It was also stated that it was evident from a cursory reading of the victim's statement that he was not guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted.

The court, however, did not find sufficient evidence to grant the application.

2013 saw the arrest of Asaram Bapu on charges of raping a minor girl. The alleged offence occurred in the Manai village of Jodhpur in August 2013.

On August 20, 2013, a FIR was initially registered against him. In accordance with the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Juvenile Justice Act (JJ Act), and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses (POCSO) Act, he was arrested at midnight on August 31, 2013.

According to the chargeseet submitted in November 2013, Asaram and the other accused were indicted for various violations of the Indian Penal Code, the Juvenile Justice Act, and the Protection of Children from Sexual Offenses Act, including trafficking, rape, outraging a woman's modesty, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation.

Following Asaram's arrest, two women from Surat filed a complaint alleging they were raped between 2002 and 2005 by Asaram and his son.

The felony trial for the alleged rape in Jodhpur began in 2014 and lasted four years. In the course of the trial, nine witnesses were attacked, and three were murdered.

The applicant was represented by Senior Advocate Devadatt Kamat, Advocates Rajesh Inamdar and RS Saluja, and the respondent was represented by AAG Anil Joshi, Public Prosecutor RR Chhaperwal, and Advocate PC Solanka.

D.D:07-07-2022

Asharam @ Ashumal versus. State of Rajasthan 

Latest Legal News